"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. ... Now (smoking) is dirty, deadly and banned."

Those words — uttered in 1994 by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, then head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control — have epitomized a problem endemic to taxpayer-funded research on guns.

And this is why since 1996, Congress has prevented the CDC from engaging in politically motivated junk science, requiring that researchers not "advocate or promote gun control."

Notice that the wording doesn't prevent legitimate medical research.

What it does do is keep the Rosenbergs of the world from using taxpayer-funded research as a shill to promote an anti-gun political agenda.

Consider Arthur Kellerman who, using CDC funds, published a study in 1993 claiming a gun in the home is roughly three times more likely to be used against the homeowner than to be used in self-defense. This statistic has been debunked by countless studies — including one from the Justice Department — showing that guns are used more often to save lives in America. But for years, Kellerman's "research" was used by every anti-gun nut in America to demonize firearms.

Supporters of taxpayer-funded research argue that a lack of data makes it difficult for policymakers to make good decisions about guns.

But no one opposes private research into guns and violence. The objection is to forcing taxpayers into footing the bill for slanted research that will be used to justify gun control.

The very assumption that the federal government has to "do something about guns" violates the Constitution, which guarantees that our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

To reduce violence, all we need to do is ask our first responders. Eighty percent of law enforcement, according to a PoliceOne.com survey of more than 15,000 officers, believe that legally armed citizens (carrying concealed) would likely have "reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shooting(s)."